Page 24 of 130 FirstFirst ... 1422232425263474124 ... LastLast
Results 231 to 240 of 1296

Thread: Hex sued by MTG

  1. #231
    Gigantisaur
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    1,038
    Quote Originally Posted by GatticusFinch View Post
    Well, I am a lawyer. I read the complaint. Everyone just brushing this off as no big deal has no idea what they are talking about, not surprisingly.

    This is not Hasbro just unicornpooping around. They have cognizable legal claims in here that could easily get past motions to dismiss or summary judgment, and then you're talking a few years of litigation. Hell, the trade dress complaints about the game interface alone could reach the SCOTUS because that is still an unsettled area of the law. If they got a preliminary injunction to shut the game down, you can basically stick a fork in Hex as you know it.
    Hi Mr. Lawyer Guy… What is the test courts use to determine the merits of an injunction (both preliminary and permanent)? Hex is too early in its development for WotC to have a demonstrable claim that it is being adversely affected, yet it obviously could by the time this trial is actually concluded. And past WotC patent issues have typically ended in licensing settlements, so there appears to be an adequate remedy that isn't injunction. Conversely, CZE may well argue an injunction would be an imbalanced and undue hardship, as it would effectively ruin them before there was any determination of wrongdoing.

    So… as I am not a lawyer, and not trying to read tea-leaves into the outcome of the case… what would be the reason for issuing an injunction, and how would it apply here?

    Thanks in advance for providing a more insightful response that Google has thus far provided.

  2. #232
    Quote Originally Posted by GatticusFinch View Post
    You're 100% wrong on the trade dress. The law is still somewhat unsettled on electronic interface trade dress, but it is certainly a cognizable legal theory. Their layout of the game and cards is non-functional and distinctive and, let's face it, Hex looks eerily similar.
    Thanks, I'd like to learn more.

    I do have a question, the cards are similar yet distinctively different to the point that just having one hex card in a batch of magic cards would stick out like a sore thumb, how is that really infringing on this?

  3. #233
    Hero of Adamanth
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    the Netherlands
    Posts
    311
    Quote Originally Posted by Philomorph View Post
    Every single backer of Hex needs to write an email to the following address: withheld

    Let them know that this is a dick move and that we will boycott all Hasbro and WotC products if this suit isn't withdrawn. I know it's not really enough people to sway them, but if we get some publicity it could at least make them notice.
    No. No they do not.

    Stay classy.

    EDIT:
    Quote Originally Posted by Werlix View Post
    To be fair, does it matter from a legal standpoint how some members of the game's community refer to a game mechanic? Isn't the actual name of the mechanic/element the important part? In this case, "Shard"?
    In this case, yes it does matter because WotCare saying that customers and potential customers have a hard time distinguishing between the two games. They argue that money that would have gone to WotC/MtG is going to CZE/Hex due to their supposed, intentional simile of MtG.
    Last edited by Makizushi; 05-14-2014 at 09:32 PM.

  4. #234
    Quote Originally Posted by Makizushi View Post
    No. No they do not.

    Stay classy.
    Yeah, I'm going to agree with what someone posted earlier in the thread that pretty much every single post that contains the words sued or lawsuit should be locked and/or deleted. The "Not one penny" thread being a perfect example.

  5. #235
    Quote Originally Posted by MatWith1T View Post
    Hi Mr. Lawyer Guy… What is the test courts use to determine the merits of an injunction (both preliminary and permanent)? Hex is too early in its development for WotC to have a demonstrable claim that it is being adversely affected, yet it obviously could by the time this trial is actually concluded. And past WotC patent issues have typically ended in licensing settlements, so there appears to be an adequate remedy that isn't injunction. Conversely, CZE may well argue an injunction would be an imbalanced and undue hardship, as it would effectively ruin them before there was any determination of wrongdoing.

    So… as I am not a lawyer, and not trying to read tea-leaves into the outcome of the case… what would be the reason for issuing an injunction, and how would it apply here?

    Thanks in advance for providing a more insightful response that Google has thus far provided.
    Preliminary injunctions are very hard to get. Essentially, you have to make a showing, before doing any formal discovery into the claim, that there is a high likelihood that you will win, that you are likely being irreparably harmed without the injunction, that balancing the equities (basically, justice and fairness) weighs in favor of the party seeking the injunction, and that the injunction is in the public's interest.

    Hex isn't too early in development to avoid the injunction. They are already bringing in money. The prior patent resolutions really have no precedent. Legal settlements are not binding precedent.

    The reason for issuing an injunction is that law suits can drag on and on. If someone has such a good claim, a preliminary injunction will stop them from being harmed while the law suit is worked out. Otherwise, they could just drag the suit out as long as possible and the damage may already be done by that point.

    I doubt a preliminary injunction could be entered in this case, but the reason for entering an injunction would be a showing from Hasbro that they have such a great claim (likely on the patent claim, because the others are much more subjective) that they are going to win and that every day the suit drags on CZE is profiting off of Hasbro's patents.

  6. #236
    Hero of Adamanth
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    326
    If there's an argument over the look and feel, Crypto have repeatedly said that the UI is a "work in progress" and not the final representation.

    I also understand the lawsuit is not about enhancements, but the rubbish about lost revenue is ridiculous. I quit magic about 10 years ago, and have had no interest in going back to a PvP card game. I backed hex for the PvE MMO component, in a TCG format, none of which Magic offers, as others have said.
    Idus - Keep Name: Mythopoeia
    The Unnamed Council - Inner Circle Member
    http://unnamed-council.com

  7. #237
    Rock League Champion
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Austria
    Posts
    868
    The biggest problem at the moment is that a lot of ppl wont buy platinum until this issue will be solved... and this could lead to lack of money... for sure this is not the best thing in the current phase of hex
    Austrian Kickstarter & Slacker Backer | IGN: Cernz
    __________________________________________________

    -=] Dont mess with the bull, you gonna get the horn [=-

  8. #238
    The WOTC post said they had made contact so Crypto would have been aware of this some time ago.

  9. #239
    Gigantisaur
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    1,038
    Quote Originally Posted by GatticusFinch View Post
    Preliminary injunctions are very hard to get. Essentially, you have to make a showing, before doing any formal discovery into the claim, that there is a high likelihood that you will win, that you are likely being irreparably harmed without the injunction, that balancing the equities (basically, justice and fairness) weighs in favor of the party seeking the injunction, and that the injunction is in the public's interest.

    Hex isn't too early in development to avoid the injunction. They are already bringing in money. The prior patent resolutions really have no precedent. Legal settlements are not binding precedent.

    The reason for issuing an injunction is that law suits can drag on and on. If someone has such a good claim, a preliminary injunction will stop them from being harmed while the law suit is worked out. Otherwise, they could just drag the suit out as long as possible and the damage may already be done by that point.

    I doubt a preliminary injunction could be entered in this case, but the reason for entering an injunction would be a showing from Hasbro that they have such a great claim (likely on the patent claim, because the others are much more subjective) that they are going to win and that every day the suit drags on CZE is profiting off of Hasbro's patents.
    Thanks. What I meant by Hex being early in the development process is that WotC likely has no evidence at this point in time that they themselves are losing money as a result of the alleged infringement. Or is the fact that Hex is making money from their patent (allegedly) in and of itself 'harm' to WotC/Hasbro? Or do they have to argue the potential harm to their own IP (aka MtG) in order to be granted a preliminary injunction?

  10. #240
    Quote Originally Posted by Quasari View Post
    Thanks, I'd like to learn more.

    I do have a question, the cards are similar yet distinctively different to the point that just having one hex card in a batch of magic cards would stick out like a sore thumb, how is that really infringing on this?
    Trade dress is the totality of the product, the overall image. Obviously, you can drill down to the two cards and say they look different (even though some look almost identical, like Murder in both Hex and Magic). There have been trade dress cases protecting the layouts of restaurants, even though they are obviously not serving the same food, for example.

    The trade dress elements cannot be for function--such as tapping cards. That is purely a design feature, it has no actual utilitarian reason to be that way. The trade dress has to be distinct--that is, when you see it, you recall a certain product. So, if you pull back and look at the totality of the two games, you can see some striking similarities in design features: tapping cards, where the deck, graveyard, hand, etc. sits, the chain, the naming of certain elements (swiftstrike versus firststrike). There are a lot of non-functional, distinctive elements that Hex has used that were previously used in Magic. IMO, there are a lot of trade dress arguments that can be made.

    The issue is electronic trade dress is a relatively recent area of the law (websites, for example). Unsettled areas of the law will necessarily be more litigated because there are no precedents to judge the case on.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •